lewmonst

I'd yank the TI's rating. Then ban the cameraguy from tandems.

The stick on mount is bomb. I tried peeling one off my helmet and couldn't do it with my bare hands. I'm not worried about it falling off in freefall. The mount looks snaggie, yeah, but I do think a line snag would rip it off. Which, if that were to ever happen, would be my own $200 punishment for not deploying stable.

Karen

drogue wouldn't release/container lock. TI tried both orange and blue. Drogue released and container opened fine on ground. TI said full gear check was done prior to jump. We'll never know exactly what caused this in freefall. Video had backed away for opening shot and is too far away to see anything. I have over 1000 jumps on perris tandem gear, never had this problem. He landed the reserve safely.

Quote

I don't find shows about homosexuals to be entertaining.

Yeah but you liked M.A.S.H. didn't you?

Quote

What if you don't know who he was or care?

Then go and learn something. Have an open mind. Is that too much to ask?

Everyone should see it. It's one of the best films I've ever seen. Really, really well done.

(It's a documentary/biography/true story of Harvey Milk, starring Sean Penn.)

http://www.milkmovie.co.uk/

Xaos.


I have two 27-cells. Love them. Jump camera all the time.


The 21's are even better for camera. I kept an old 21-cell for wingsuit jumps.

What arguments in the Bible against Gay marriage...?

Read this: http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653?gt1=43002


I'll be back... off to go sacrifice a goat...



(kidding of course)

I've been jumping one for a week or so just to try it out. I got it for multiple sports use, and so far have skydived with it and mtn biked with it.

It's lighter than an altimeter. I rigged up a hand mount for the "Wide", as GoPro doesn't have the wrist strap for the wide version yet. I'm planning on modifying the case to mount on the front of an open face helmet, a bit less protruding than the mount it's built for now. It would be great for debreifing AFF if I can mount it the way I hope.

I'm quite pleased with the results. I have a few of the videos posted on my facebook if any friends want to see. They're raw footage though, so a bit rough. Not high res by any means, but the picture quality is better than one would expect from something that looks like a crackerjack box toy. It's super easy to use. Great for quick uploading to the web.

If anyone is in Perris, find me and I'll show you how it works.

I'm looking forward to more various mounting options and cases... So, GoPro, what's on the horizon?

Thanks!
Karen

This, actually, is a good directive imho.

Quote

Quote

And I said, "Can you imagine our world withOUT religion...?" So much less conflict, less war, less arguing, less fear, less hypocrisy, less angst, less guilt, less insecurity, less psychoses, less elitism...

Beyond COEXIST. Just Exist.

i just don't believe that. humans will always find something to fight about.

Yes... Notice I did not say purged of, only less of. Sadly, many humans have a need for conflict and will find/create it somewhere.

Quote

What's so funny about this, to me, is how people STILL think all of California is ultra left wing. People outside of SoCal have NO idea how religious conservative certain parts of California are.

This is so true... I was just talking to a friend about this last night. Particularly about the Prop 8 battle, and about the Bible Belt here in certain parts of SoCal... (OC & Tem/Mur)

And I said, "Can you imagine our world withOUT religion...?" So much less conflict, less war, less arguing, less fear, less hypocrisy, less angst, less guilt, less insecurity, less psychoses, less elitism...

Beyond COEXIST. Just Exist.

Democrats are more like Jesus than Republicans

Just a thought...

(Not replying to anyone in particular... and forgive me as I have not kept up on reading all 15 pages of my thread i started)

This is a very interesting read though:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20081114/cm_csm/yroosevelt;_ylt=AiY8H0LUcDPaqNjPAxvDghSs0NUE

Quote

California's same-sex marriage case affects all of us

Philadelphia – What now for California? In May, its Supreme Court announced a right to same-sex marriage. Gays and lesbians rushed to take advantage of the opportunity; by early November, 18,000 such marriages had been performed. But on Nov. 5, they stopped. By a 52-47 percent margin, California voters approved Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Immediately, gay rights supporters filed lawsuits asking to overturn the ruling. Critics are calling Proposition 8 an illegal constitutional "revision," fundamentally altering the guarantee of equality – not a more limited "amendment."

This suit raises a serious question: When should a majority have the power to take away a constitutional right granted by a court?

It's a question that forces us to think about why we have constitutional rights in the first place, and why they are enforced by judges. But it is not simply a theoretical puzzle. All of us enjoy constitutional rights, and most of us are at some point in a minority. All of us could be affected.

American constitutional practice has generally been to expand rights over time, both by amendment and by judicial decision. Amendments to the federal Constitution, for example, gave women and minorities the right to vote. Judicial decisions have expanded the constitutional guarantee of equality to protect more and more groups. Some of these decisions remain intensely controversial, but none have been overruled by a federal amendment.

Of course, amending the federal Constitution is difficult. It requires approval by "supermajorities": two-thirds in the House and the Senate and three-quarters of state legislatures. Federal rights cannot be taken away by a simple majority vote.

Because of this requirement, judicial decisions enforcing the federal Constitution's equality guarantee have followed a relatively consistent pattern. At one point in time, a particular practice – say, the racial segregation of public schools or the exclusion of women from the practice of law – is so widely accepted that it seems beyond challenge. Judges are not likely to strike the practice down, and if they did, the backlash might well be strong enough to create a constitutional amendment.

Some time later, the practice becomes controversial. It still enjoys majority support – otherwise it would likely be undone through ordinary lawmaking – but it no longer has the allegiance of a supermajority. It is at this time that judges tend to act in order to protect the freedoms of the minority, striking down the practice as unjustified discrimination. The decision may be intensely controversial. It may even be the target of majority disapproval. But because there is no longer a supermajority, the decision is safe.

As attitudes evolve, the practice comes to seem outrageous. Almost no one, nowadays, would argue for racial segregation of schools or a ban on female lawyers. At this point, the judicial decision is no longer controversial.

If a majority could overrule a judicial decision, the process would frequently be stopped by that majority vote. Judicial interventions against discrimination would just not succeed.

Regardless of where you stand on same-sex marriage, what's troubling for US citizens in the California case is the idea that an equality guarantee could not be effectively enforced against the will of a majority. The point of such a guarantee is precisely to protect minorities from discrimination at the hands of a majority.

It would be somewhat surprising, then, if California allowed judicial decisions enforcing the state equality guarantee to be overruled by a simple majority vote. In fact, as the gay-rights supporters' suit indicates, it is not clear that it does. Under the California constitution, "amendments" can be approved by a simple majority vote.

But "revisions," which make substantial changes, require approval by a supermajority – two-thirds of both houses of the legislature – before being submitted to voters. Supporters framed the same-sex marriage ban as an amendment, when really it has the makings of a revision.

It makes sense to require supermajority support to overrule a judicial decision that grants rights to a minority. It shows that the judges were so out of step with society that they were probably wrong. But a simple majority does not show that, and the constitution would not afford meaningful protection if it could be overruled at the will of the majority.

As the opposition to same-sex marriage in California has shrunk, simple majorities should not be able to reverse decisions made in the name of equality.

This is not an argument that the California court was correct. The battle for public opinion goes on. But letting the court's decision stand against the disapproval of a simple majority is not only sensible, it protects the minority rights of future generations.

Unpopular decisions are the price of constitutional rights.

• Kermit Roosevelt teaches law at the University of Pennsylvania's law school.

N/A

I know I rarely pay attention to the stolen gear listings here, so I'm hoping everyone will take notice.

Take a moment and read the stolen gear listings here: http://www.dropzone.com/stolen/

A newly licensed Perris jumper just recently had his brand new rig stolen from his trunk. It's a Mirage with "Chip" on the mudflap. It's a beautiful rig and he only got 10 jumps on it before it was stolen.

Here's hoping the laws of the universe bring the rig back to Chip...

Quote

There is nothing funny about a country that can find 10 billion a month for a war built on a false premise (weapons of mass destruction) but cannot find the money to have univerdsl health care Something we in Aust had had since 1975. (Costs me around $700 per year in taxes) " Oh but you cannot let the government run health care "... better to have insurance companies that make obscene amounts of money by providing the least amount of care as possible.(what about the sick people who cannot get insurance.)

This is SO true. Any American denying this needs to open their eyes.

Might as well put this out there....


(Edit to note, NADER is with GONZALEZ, but my sheet got cut off and I just copied what I tried to make out the name to be... my bad)

Quote

(My head's so big that there's no room for a dytter in the lining of my flat-top.)

That's cause your brain is big cause you're so SMRT!

Hey Jason!

Good to see you on here. I rarely get into Speakers Corner, but I am very passionate about certain things in this election, as you can tell.

So, thanks for the support. Go Vote!

Karen

Quote

Life has never "stopped." Egg cells and sperm are alive - that does not mean that birth control is killing a human being. Blastocysts are alive - that does not mean that IUD's are equivalent to murder. Fetuses are alive - but that does not mean that abortions are murder.

The more important question is when does the fetus become a human being? I can see two good answers to that.

The first is the brain. The one thing that defines us as uniquely human is our mind. With a mind, someone is a whole person, even if their bodies are crippled. Without a mind, they are not human, and the only question that remains is how long to keep them alive mechanically.

The second is viability. Once a fetus can survive outside the womb, there's not much question that it is a human being.

In a fetus, the brain starts working at between 8-12 weeks. The fetus becomes viable after about 24 weeks. So choosing a line between those extremes, to me, would be defensible.

Agreed...

I see what Amy sees in Bill

Thanks for the shirt!!!

Quote

Quote

Why would you say it's less shaky with steady shot off? That's not a good sign of the functionality of steady shot.

For freefall, that's pretty much the norm. Do you ever look at footage on a pc? If the camera in question had IS turned on you a) get shakier footage, the amount of shake varies from barely/not noticeable to unusable footage in extreme cases (OIS), and b) you can often see one or more black corners, like vignetting but these bounce around all the time. Very irritating for me when I edit daily videos/competition videos

Actually, yes, my good ole PC330 shoots awesome steady footage with IS on. I wonder why the EIS of the newer cameras isn't as good as it was on the old ones.

Let girls seek help SAFELY.

NO on 4.